Trudeau say Americans should pay more attention to the world

[Montecresto]

I didn't claim it was anything other than what it was, and like the editors of The Atlantic I thought it was worth noting. A poll? Here's a poll.

Public Attitudes In Iraq: Four Years On
Jan 21, 2013

You quoted me and posted it to counter an actual poll that I posted. :shrug:

I'll stick with the source of my poll over your British poll.
Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center

 

[Grant]

I didn't claim it was anything other than what it was, and like the editors of The Atlantic I thought it was worth noting. A poll? Here's a poll.

Public Attitudes In Iraq: Four Years On
Jan 21, 2013

It would be interesting to see how the Iraqi people feel in 2016.

 

[JANFU]

Perhaps, but feel the facts are on my side.

No the facts are on the ground in Iraq and Libya.

 

[Grant]

No the facts are on the ground in Iraq and Libya.

There's no disputing that. Is it your understanding that I'm denying the problems in Iraq today?

What happened in Libya was godawful stupid and too large a portion of the American people are seriously considering electing the person largely responsible as President..

Iraq has a different history than Libya..

 

[Jack Hays]

You quoted me and posted it to counter an actual poll that I posted. :shrug:

I'll stick with the source of my poll over your British poll.
Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center

Stick with whatever you like. Your "centre" was founded and led by an Iraqi politician. My poll was at least conducted by people with no political objective.

 

[JANFU]

There's no disputing that. Is it your understanding that I'm denying the problems in Iraq today?

What happened in Libya was godawful stupid and too large a portion of the American people are seriously considering electing the person largely responsible as President..

Iraq has a different history than Libya..

US troops could have been there for the next 10 years- after they left - the crap would be the same.
The US was well aware of the past PPM corruption, death squads and on and on. he would not listen.
Why, they hate the other side.

 

[Montecresto]

Stick with whatever you like. Your "centre" was founded and led by an Iraqi politician. My poll was at least conducted by people with no political objective.

Well its not mine, but...........funny you think A, that pollsters have no political agendas and B, that the British would be more tuned to the sensibilities of Iraqis than an Iraqi, lol. Truth is, along with the other three Americans and a Canadian or two that still think the Iraq war was a good idea, you'll defend it on your death bed. :shrug:

 

[Jack Hays]

Well its not mine, but...........funny you think A, that pollsters have no political agendas and B, that the British would be more tuned to the sensibilities of Iraqis than an Iraqi, lol. Truth is, along with the other three Americans and a Canadian or two that still think the Iraq war was a good idea, you'll defend it on your death bed. :shrug:

The British would be more detached than an Iraqi politician, yes.

 

[Montecresto]

US troops could have been there for the next 10 years- after they left - the crap would be the same.
The US was well aware of the past PPM corruption, death squads and on and on. he would not listen.
Why, they hate the other side.

I agree. One hundred thousand permenantly stationed troops at god knows what cost (not just money but the constant trickle of soldiers coming home in body bags, something we don't have with Germany or Korea) may have kept relative stability. But then what, the same in Libya, Syria. Whether the macho men here want to acknowledge it or not, the US roll as policeman of the world is coming to an end. It's been abused far too often and there are now powers pushing back against it in a very big way.

 

[Montecresto]

The British would be more detached than an Iraqi politician, yes.

I think the point was that you're on the sinking ship to the bottom. The world now knows that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a colossal mistake. And you've suffered nothing for it whereas hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are no longer breathing because of it, millions More were made refugees and murder is now rampant in Iraq which is near civil war. This all began with a complete moron made president that didn't know the Sunni Shia divide or the hatred that went back Millenia, kept in check by the tyrant the moron removed. And in terms of foreign policy at least, not any smarter, with Libya and Syria, the current CIC has fanned the flames.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think the point was that you're on the sinking ship to the bottom. The world now knows that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a colossal mistake. And you've suffered nothing for it whereas hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are no longer breathing because of it, millions More were made refugees and murder is now rampant in Iraq which is near civil war. This all began with a complete moron made president that didn't know the Sunni Shia divide or the hatred that went back Millenia, kept in check by the tyrant the moron removed. And in terms of foreign policy at least, not any smarter, with Libya and Syria, the current CIC has fanned the flames.

And yet Iraqis prefer this Iraq to Saddam's Iraq. You value freedom too little.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

And yet Iraqis prefer this Iraq to Saddam's Iraq. You value freedom too little.

I would ask the families of the 100K+ Iraqi men, women, and children who died during the invasion and occupation - and the ones who continue to suffer and die during the current insurrection - if the regime change was worth it.

And while you're at it, ask the families of the Americans who died or who were wounded there.

 

[Montecresto]

And yet Iraqis prefer this Iraq to Saddam's Iraq. You value freedom too little.

That was already proven wrong.

 

[Jack Hays]

I would ask the families of the 100K+ Iraqi men, women, and children who died during the invasion and occupation - and the ones who continue to suffer and die during the current insurrection - if the regime change was worth it.

And while you're at it, ask the families of the Americans who died or who were wounded there.

Just as we honor those who sacrificed for us, so do Iraqis.

 

[Jack Hays]

That was already proven wrong.

A falsehood.

 

[Montecresto]

A falsehood.

Same thing.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Just as we honor those who sacrificed for us, so do Iraqis.

Oh, they honor their own, all right...and they also remember who came there and invaded their sovereign nation, whose invasion resulted in 100K+ of their own men, women, and children killed.

That would be like America being taken over by a tyranny, and then China - who had once supported the tyrant now ruling America - decided to invade America and get rid of the tyrant, killing a few hundred thousand of our own men, women, and children in the process...

...and how would we feel towards the Chinese after that? Pretty much the same way a lot of Iraqis rightly feel towards us.

 

[Grant]

US troops could have been there for the next 10 years- after they left - the crap would be the same.

Why do you make this claim? Because the Islamists would still be there waiting for them to leave?

The US was well aware of the past PPM corruption, death squads and on and on. he would not listen. Why, they hate the other side.

I'm not certain what this means.

 

[Grant]

I would ask the families of the 100K+ Iraqi men, women, and children who died during the invasion and occupation - and the ones who continue to suffer and die during the current insurrection - if the regime change was worth it.

Do you understand who was killing those people at the time, and who is killing them today?

And while you're at it, ask the families of the Americans who died or who were wounded there.

They should be asked why these soldiers died in vain, winning something which Barrack Obama later threw away.

 

[Grant]

I agree. One hundred thousand permenantly stationed troops at god knows what cost

Who told you there would be 100,000 troops stationed there???

(not just money but the constant trickle of soldiers coming home in body bags, something we don't have with Germany or Korea)

The fact is that there were fewer fatalities in Iraq than there were in a month in Chicago when Obama decided to pull the troops.

You're okay with having the military in Germany until someone gets hurt?

may have kept relative stability.

Again, it was stable. And this is in 2011, the stats are available, not when your Daily Kos survey was taken.

 

[Grant]

Oh, they honor their own, all right...and they also remember who came there and invaded their sovereign nation, whose invasion resulted in 100K+ of their own men, women, and children killed.That would be like America being taken over by a tyranny, and then China - who had once supported the tyrant now ruling America - decided to invade America and get rid of the tyrant, killing a few hundred thousand of our own men, women, and children in the process......and how would we feel towards the Chinese after that? Pretty much the same way a lot of Iraqis rightly feel towards us.

The US president is elected by the people and none of them to date have ever been genocidal mass murdering psychopaths. If that ever happens you might want to call the Chinese for assistance.

 

[Montecresto]

Who told you there would be 100,000 troops stationed there???The fact is that there were fewer fatalities in Iraq than there were in a month in Chicago when Obama decided to pull the troops.

You're okay with having the military in Germany until someone gets hurt?
Again, it was stable. And this is in 2011, the stats are available, not when your Daily Kos survey was taken.

It wasn't a Daily Kos survey. You really have difficulty with honesty and character dude.

Nobody told me 100,000 that's a number I grabbed. It could be 150,000 or 75,000, whatever commanders advise a president on. You completely missed the real point, as usual.

And during your 2011 "quiet period" the Islamic State was there, working on their organisational plans for the future. Without a perminant and sizeable occupying force left in Iraq, and with no one like Saddam to keep the Islamic extremists in check, what has happened was inevitable. And we Americans didn't want a permanent large force in Iraq, we sent Bush packing with a dismally low approval rating of 23%, and don't give a **** what any Mounty thinks about it, hear?

And no, I'm not ok with 70 year deployments in Germany or Korea, been clear on that many times, but you're too busy mouthing your Canadian opinion of what America should be doing all the time, in a thread about your pm. Get a life and mind your business.

 

[Grant]

It wasn't a Daily Kos survey. You really have difficulty with honesty and character dude.

I felt certain you got that link from the Daily Kos. Oh well.

Nobody told me 100,000 that's a number I grabbed. It could be 150,000 or 75,000, whatever commanders advise a president on. You completely missed the real point, as usual.

No, I got the real point. The real point is that you just made up that number and have no knowledge of recommended troop strengths. The most commonly used number was 35,000. Just read the history rather than guessing at it.

And during your 2011 "quiet period" the Islamic State was there, working on their organisational plans for the future.

Exactly!! Now you're getting it! That's why the military and all the advisers recommended that a sufficient number of troops remain to protect what had been won and to maintain peace and order.

Without a perminant and sizeable occupying force left in Iraq, and with no one like Saddam to keep the Islamic extremists in check, what has happened was inevitable.

Saddam was a genocidal maniac and deserved to be removed, but certainly forces should have remained.

And we Americans didn't want a permanent large force in Iraq, we sent Bush packing with a dismally low approval rating of 23%, and don't give a **** what any Mounty thinks about it, hear?

In fact you don't speak for Americans any more than I do but war should never be conducted by polls. That's why leaders are elected

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The US president is elected by the people and none of them to date have ever been genocidal mass murdering psychopaths. If that ever happens you might want to call the Chinese for assistance.

In YOUR view - and in the view of pretty much all Americans including myself - the above bolded statement is true.

The problem is, it's not OUR view that is the concern. In THEIR view - the view of the Iraqis who watched 100K+ of their fellow men, women, and children - their FAMILIES - get killed due to our invasion and the subsequent insurgencies - yeah, we DID commit mass murder.

That's a skill you need to learn, Grant - the skill to understand what the other person thinks and WHY they think as they do...because it's just as Sun Tzu said thousands of years ago, if you don't really understand your enemy, you can never win a war against your enemy.

 

[Montecresto]

I felt certain you got that link from the Daily Kos. Oh well.
No, I got the real point. The real point is that you just made up that number and have no knowledge of recommended troop strengths. The most commonly used number was 35,000. Just read the history rather than guessing at it.
Exactly!! Now you're getting it! That's why the military and all the advisers recommended that a sufficient number of troops remain to protect what had been won and to maintain peace and order.Saddam was a genocidal maniac and deserved to be removed, but certainly forces should have remained.
In fact you don't speak for Americans any more than I do but war should never be conducted by polls. That's why leaders are elected

The DK posted it. It was an Iraqi survey group poll, but you knew that. I'm done with your dishonesty bub. You need to concern yourself with Canadian business, I don't give a **** what you think America should be doing.